Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOUTBoard minutes 081606 1 T:\Advisory Boards\Orange Unified Transportation Board\Minutes\2006\OutboardMinutes8-16-06.doc 1 Orange Unified Transportation Board Meeting Summary August 16, 2006 Orange County Public Works, Hillsborough, NC Members Present: Barry Jacobs, BOCC; Nancy Cole Baker; Jan Grossman; Sam Lasris; Robert Peterson; Sandy Quinn; James Ray; Bryn Smith; Al Terry; Eric Tillman Staff Present: Karen Lincoln, Transportation Planner; Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Sherri Ingersoll, Administrative Assistant Visitors: Pat Strong, Triangle J Council of Governments I. Call to Order and Roll Call Karen Lincoln called the meeting to order at approximately 7:20 p.m. She distributed copies of the Comprehensive Plan Process, a map showing Orange County 2006-2012 TIP projects and 2007-2013 TIP Priority List projects, the Development Process and Schedule for the DCHC 2007-2013 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program, the DCHC Public Involvement Policy dated August 9, 2006. II. Consideration of Additions to the Agenda It was unanimously agreed to discuss the Draft Comprehensive Plan Process following the calendar review. III. Board Comments Al Terry discussed the recent news article where he was quoted about a change in the Chapel Hill-Hillsborough OPT route to exclude certain areas, including the stop outside of the minimum security prison just south of Hillsborough. This had previously been a public stop, where prisoners were able to use public transportation to secure employment or go to school. This had been discussed between OPT and the prison prior to the route being changed, and it was determined by the prison that the change would only affect two prisoners, and they would use private transportation to accommodate that need. It appears that, rather than using their own van, the prison chose to use a contract service to provide transportation, which was quite expensive. This choice was not a reflection of OPT service to the prison; it was the choice made by the prison that was reflected in the article. Terry mentioned that information regarding General Assembly issues affecting transportation could be found at www.ncga.state.nc.us Terry mentioned that the Smart Commute Program started on Monday. Sandy Quinn noted that she was already enrolled in the program, and that the program was being widely publicized on TTA. The program does not include Chapel Hill Transit. 2 T:\Advisory Boards\Orange Unified Transportation Board\Minutes\2006\OutboardMinutes8-16-06.doc 2 Bryn Smith commented that she was able to contact the appropriate Duke persons responsible for transportation, and was lobbying for a program similar to UNC’s free ride program for employees, to promote public transportation. Barry Jacobs said that at a meeting he recently attended, the President of TTA confirmed that Duke is interested in developing a program for employees. Jan Grossman questioned the DOT’s desire to add bike lanes on the shoulders when roads are being repaved. He mentioned that although it is on the bicycle plan, NC 86 between I-40 and Hillsborough was just repaved without bicycle shoulders, and now the road is more dangerous for bicyclists, due to the higher edges on the side of the road. Lincoln said that she spoke with Chuck Edwards at DOT about this, as comments had been submitted noting the bicycle plan, and DOT did not have the funding available for extra grading and asphalt. Craig Benedict mentioned that due to the increase in cost of asphalt, and decrease in funds available, DOT has had to dramatically cut back on its repaving efforts. Lincoln mentioned that there was an agenda item for the August 22 BOCC meeting to formally change the name of this Board, and for the BOCC to approve the Rules of Procedure. IV. Approval of Minutes Lincoln noted some minor revisions she received from Bryn Smith. Eric Tillman requested an addition on page 4 to Al Terry’s comment to read, “…to the Town as well, but the Town has rejected the idea to this point.” Terry commented that the Town has only agreed to the marketing program, but does not have the funds available to implement the routes. Lincoln commented that the marketing program needs to be strong to succeed. Motion by James Ray to approve the minutes as amended. Seconded by Nancy Cole Baker. Vote: Unanimous. V. Approval of Calendar for FY 2006-07 Motion by Robert Peterson to change the December meeting date to Dec. 13. Seconded by Grossman. Vote: Unanimous. VI. Discussion of the Draft Comprehensive Plan Process Craig Benedict provided a background of the Comprehensive Plan. He said that following the recent proposed update of the Land Use Element, the BOCC requested that the Planning Board develop a process to build a consistent and complete Comprehensive Plan document, which would contain many different Elements, and to promote input from the public and various Advisory Boards. The first step is to develop a Data Element to provide consistency among the various Elements. Baker questioned if parts of the 1981plan had been implemented, and 3 T:\Advisory Boards\Orange Unified Transportation Board\Minutes\2006\OutboardMinutes8-16-06.doc 3 Benedict stated that the 1981 plan was the basis of the existing land use regulations and policies that have been implemented through various County ordinances. Lincoln noted that this Board would be involved in the development of the Transportation Element. Sam Lasris reiterated that this is a proposed process designed by the Planning Board to provide full disclosure and input with other Boards. He said that Sections 3 and 4 of the proposed process are the ‘meat’ of the document, and noted when other boards will be actively involved. Smith said that this had been discussed in detail at the recent Commission for the Environment meeting, and comments will be provided. Benedict suggested that at a future Board meeting, the excerpts of the 1981 plan related to transportation be reviewed. Peterson asked if the goal of updating the 1981 plan was to see if it had been implemented, and Lasris agreed that the update would help to identify both the successes of the 1981 plan and areas that need more work. Grossman asked if the metropolitan areas were included. Lincoln responded that the Comprehensive Plan covers the County area, and Benedict added that many areas overlap and the municipalities will have an effect on the County’s Comprehensive Plan. He said that an inter-governmental coordination Element has been proposed to incorporate working with other jurisdictions and the State. Lasris mentioned that the current draft process is lacking a timeframe, which needs to be established. Benedict encouraged Board members to attend the August 28 BOCC Work Session. Jacobs said that comments would be accepted at any time, not just at the work session. VII. Prioritization of OUTBOARD Discussion Topics Lincoln noted the status assigned to each item reflected the time the board should initiate discussion in order to make a recommendation within the time allotted for commenting on that topic. 2007-2013 TIP and MTIP Comments -– Lincoln stated that Orange County submits two sets of comments on the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) – 1. Comments to the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro (DCHC) Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) regarding the Metropolitan TIP (MTIP); and 2. Comments to the Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization (TARPO) TAC (RTAC) regarding the TIP projects outside the Metropolitan Area Boundary. NCDOT has delayed the release of the 2007-2013 STIP until early September, so we do not have it for comment. Orange County’s priority list for inclusion in the 2007-2013 TIP is included in the agenda materials for comparison with the draft TIP. DCHC Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) – Lincoln noted that the DCHC MPO Public Involvement Policy that she handed out earlier states the methods the MPO will use to involve the public in transportation decisions. The 4 T:\Advisory Boards\Orange Unified Transportation Board\Minutes\2006\OutboardMinutes8-16-06.doc 4 TAC has released amendments to the Public Involvement Policy for public comment. Federal regulations require MPOs to document public involvement for all transportation programs. In addition to mailings, community group notification, and advertising, the TAC directed that a standing Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) should be formed to comment on transportation programs. The Transportation Advisory Committee (of the DCHC MPO), at its last meeting, decided to go with the recommendation of the Technical Coordinating Committee (staff) and use existing local government citizen transportation advisory groups for public input instead of creating an additional regional Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) that would include 41 members from the MPO member jurisdictions. Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Orange County all have such citizen boards and Durham has citizen advisory boards for bicycle and pedestrian issues and transit issues. Durham could also use its intra-neighborhood councils. The OUTBoard will serve the MPO in that capacity. The DCHC MPO (Triangle Ozone Nonattainment Area) must adopt a LRTP for air quality conformity by June 2009. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Air Quality has decided to submit a maintenance plan for the State rather than a conformity plan since the State met the new 8-hour ozone standards in 2005 and appears to be meeting those standards this year. Attainment of the ozone standards for this year will not be known until after the end of ozone monitoring period (April through October). Lasris and Peterson wanted to know what this board’s role would be in commenting on the LRTP, and what the time schedule is. Lincoln state that there is complex time line for various tasks. Currently, data is being collected to update the Regional Transportation Model that is used to project future vehicle miles traveled that is needed for the air quality model. This Board will review the base year data and projections for population and employment. Downtown Hillsborough Parking – Benedict stated that there has been a report prepared outlining the issues, but that no decisions had been made yet. Tillman questioned if an OPT shuttle service was assumed, and Benedict responded that it hasn’t been decided yet, but that OPT will have some role. Jacobs stated that there are two concerns to be addressed, both short term during the construction of the justice facilities, and long term. The program will need to include transportation alternatives for both court patrons and employees, and alternatives are still being reviewed. Grossman questioned why this Board would be involved, rather than it being a Hillsborough situation. Lincoln responded that since the Court facilities are County-owned, and OPT is operated by the County, it is a consideration. Jacobs mentioned that OPT is not the only consideration, and that an RFP for other vendors may be done. Tillman requested that the private sector be contacted, as it may be more economical, and Terry agreed that there are opportunities for the public and private sectors to work together. 5 T:\Advisory Boards\Orange Unified Transportation Board\Minutes\2006\OutboardMinutes8-16-06.doc 5 OPT Service Improvements – Continuing discussion of OPT’s role in the Hillsborough Downtown Parking Study, Lincoln noted that the NCDOT and Orange County have worked out the STIP scheduling problems for the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) grant-funded project for a park and ride lot at the Durham Technical Community College Orange Campus and 3- years operating assistance for a new OPT intra-Hillsborough transit route. Baker questioned if the projects are prioritized in the STIP, and Lincoln responded that they are just listed without prioritization. Lincoln said there is a lot of interest in transit services and that the Board should have a session devoted to discussion of transit issues. She suggested that the Board’s October meeting may be a good time for discussion of these issues. Terry stated that there is a January deadline for this Board to develop a status report on these priorities for the BOCC retreat, and that specifics are not necessary, but should identify where the Board is in the process. The group decided to end discussion of topic priorities because of time constraints and continue with the remaining business items. VIII. 2007-2013 TIP and MTIP Comments - Lincoln stated that the TIP is a fiscally constrained, minimum 4-year investment program that schedules and funds major transportation projects. The program is updated every two years. Lasris asked for clarification of the MPO boundary lines, and Smith noted that the lines were based on census data. Jacobs said that the boundaries for the MPO are flexible, and that the BOCC would like to keep the RPO projects separate from the MPO, since there are different competing needs. Lasris questioned the funding for the MPO projects, and Lincoln said that Lincoln said that funding is by NCDOT districts. Orange County is in District 7 and does not compete for MTIP funding with Durham County in Division 5, or Chatham County in Division 8. Baker questioned how the priority list was developed. Lincoln responded that potential projects came from previous Priority Project Lists, approved plans and recommendations from transportation studies that had been approved by the Board of Commissioners. The last priority list had received input from the Planning Board, the Commission for the Environment and the Economic Development Commission before being adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. Benedict added that a difficulty with the MPO priority list is combining our requests with those of other jurisdictions, as the competition for funded projects is very tough. Grossman questioned the actual success of Orange County projects being completed, and Lincoln said that it took many years, sometimes 10-20 years or longer, to get a project in the TIP and through the process. Jacobs indicated that, especially with the current lack of funding, the County needs to look at projects differently, such as requiring turn lanes with subdivisions to maintain adequate capacity of secondary roads in the county. Some of these solutions can be implemented at the County/Staff level. DOT has positively cooperated with this in the past. The County has had good success in getting projects funded through other NCDOT funding programs. 6 T:\Advisory Boards\Orange Unified Transportation Board\Minutes\2006\OutboardMinutes8-16-06.doc 6 Lincoln added that the MTIP must be consistent with the regional Long-Term Transportation Plan (LRTP) approved to meet air quality goals of the State Implementation Plan (SIP). IX. Draft TARPO 2009-2105 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Update Process Pat Strong distributed handouts for a Powerpoint presentation, STIP background information, and NCDOT General Guidance – TIP project priority rating system, and the 2007-2013 TARPO TIP project requests dated October 3, 2005. Strong said that one of the difficulties with the TARPO priority lists is finding common ground among the four counties involved. Orange County is the only County entirely in Division 7, which is beneficial. Items #3-5 of the slide presentation (Project needs evaluation, supplemental project documentation and preparation of regional needs prioritization lists) are all done concurrently and involve Orange County staff, Triangle J, the RPO and TAC. Grossman questioned if there is a preference over determining factors, and Strong responded that no, the factors are evenly considered, and that in the past, attempts to rank projects has been problematic. Lincoln indicated that working with our Board of Transportation representative has proven to be most helpful. Strong said that since different sources of funds are used, the priorities of the Board of Transportation can vary, and they base their decisions on safety issues. Benedict added that there are other funding methods that can be used, and Lincoln said that information on funding sources will be included at the next meeting. Lincoln stated that the next meeting will be at the Chapel Hill Library. She mentioned that one of the Board’s discussion topics is an ongoing identification of safety concerns in the County. She mentioned that the quarterly meeting with DOT is coming up on August 29, and that if the Board members have any immediate concerns, to notify her as soon as possible so that she could get it on the agenda. Also, she asked that if Board members feel that repair work being done is inadequate, please let her know of the specific locations. Grossman questioned if and how the Board could find out more about the projects, and how projects were funded. Special attention was made to an improvement on Old NC 86 at Deer Ridge Road. Jacobs said that the County did not request the improvements, there were safety concerns. X. Adjournment Motion by Peterson to adjourn. Seconded by Smith. Vote: Unanimous.